FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR
Wherein the Obama campaign is told to grow up about the New Yorker thing.
No, *not* by me: I'm enjoying watching this. By somebody else.
The op-ed is quite choice, really – and hard to know where to cut.
If Obama’s campaign is upset by a magazine satire, what will it do when the real attacks begin?
July 15, 2008
Let’s be frank. People sophisticated enough to read, say, newspaper editorials are smart enough to know that the New Yorker’s cover art this week — portraying Barack Obama as a be-turbaned Muslim and wife Michelle as an Afro-sporting terrorist with an AK-47 across her back — is a work of satire. But what about the millions of dumb Americans who will think otherwise?
Obama’s campaign is deeply worried about the legions of morons who they apparently believe make up the heart of this great nation. Obama spokesman Bill Burton helpfully interpreted the sensibilities of these uneducated masses when he said Monday, “Most readers will see [the cover] as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.” Republican nominee-apparent John McCain’s spokesman, Tucker Bounds, seemingly too bored with the controversy to come up with an original epithet, simply agreed that the cover was “tasteless and offensive.”
Also offended by all the tastelessness was Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard C. Parks, a fervent Obamaphile, who went on CNN on Monday to call for a boycott of this week’s issue of the magazine. What Parks, Burton and myriad critics across the blogosphere agree on is that, yes, people who subscribe to the New Yorker are probably smart enough to understand the concept of satire, but the issue will be seen by clueless people at newsstands nationwide — and they will come to the dangerous conclusion that, well, some artist hired by the New Yorker thinks Obama is a Muslim, his wife is a terrorist, he uses the American flag for kindling and he’d put a portrait of Osama bin Laden in the Oval Office. It’s terrifying to imagine the impact this might have on the campaign.
By all means, read the whole thing – but quick: guess which right-wing house organ published this? The National Review? The Weekly Standard? Human Events? The Washington Times? Nope: this was written by that noted VRWC lackey The Los Angeles Times (via Hot Air Headlines). Sounds like that, when it comes to the Obama campaign, somebody over there is just a little bit tired of… well, take your pick; most of them would probably fit.
Still think that brazenly going back on your word to the media that you were going to accept public financing for the general election was a net positive for you, Senator Obama?